SH you are a self proclaimed expert of captive supplies

[Anonymous]

Sandblaster: "Nice attempt at diversion...."

You R-CULTers always accuse others of what it is you do best.

Quote: "Bruce Bass, head cattle buyer for IBP testified that he informed their 75 cattle buyers four times daily as to the supply of captive supply. He then told his buyers the number of cattle to buy on the spot market and what they should give. Bass also testified that during some weeks IBP owned as much as 190% of its kill needs, nearly double what they'd need for their slaughter plants the following week. When that happened Bass told his buyers to lower their bids for cash cattle."

Yeh??? SO WHAT????

Any cattle feeder that has most of his cattle needs forward contracted bids less agressively in the cash market also. THAT SURE IS HELL ISN'T CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION. Any producer bids less agressively for bulls when they have most of his bull needs taken care of. THAT SURE AS HELL ISN'T CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION.

You explain the difference sandblaster!

It's nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory for chronic bitchers.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Are you going to try to tell me cash price has no bearing on the price of contracts?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandblaster: "Are you going to try to tell me cash price has no bearing on the price of contracts?"

Of course not. The cash price, futures price, and forward contract price all have an effect on eachother.

If you think you have a point to back the baseless "captive supply conspiracy theory", make it so I can shred it.

Your questions never result in taking a position.


~SH~

 

[mrj]

Haymaker, how can you expect anyone to believe what Pitts says when he is, at best, grossly in error in the very first paragraph?

He states: "....following the merger of our checkoff dollars with the NCBA..."

That simply did not happen. There was a merger of the National Livestock and Meat Board with NCBA, and only partially so at that.

NLMB continues to be the national association of State Beef Councils as the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA.

It is the Policy/Dues payer division of NCBA that LMA/OCM/Lee Pitts, et. al. are battling and trying to "kill" by stopping the checkoff according to their actions and comments by some leaders. "We had to go after the Checkoff to stop NCBA" said Herman Schumacher in an interview on WNAX. The joke is on them as well as on the entire cattle industry if they are successful in stopping the Beef Checkoff, because it absolutely DOES NOT finance the Policy/Dues payer division of NCBA!

All the national share of checkoff dollars are controlled by the entirely separate organization, the Cattlemens' Beef Board, which is comprised of representatives named by state cattlemens organizations, and NCBA membership is NOT a prerequisite for that board.

State share of Beef Checkoff dollars are controlled by the state Beef Councils which also do not have membership in NCBA as a prerequisite.

If Pitts is willing to spout that falsehood, how can we believe his other statements?

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandblaster: "Are you going to try to tell me cash price has no bearing on the price of contracts?"

Of course not. The cash price, futures price, and forward contract price all have an effect on eachother.

If you think you have a point to back the baseless "captive supply conspiracy theory", make it so I can shred it.

Your questions never result in taking a position.


~SH~

"Bass also testified that during some weeks IBP owned as much as 190% of its kill needs, nearly double what they'd need for their slaughter plants the following week. When that happened Bass told his buyers to lower their bids for cash cattle."


When Bass's buyers lower their bids per his instructions, the cash prices fall. Since contracts use cash price as a determinant, future contract prices will also fall. You then consider the cause/relationship of what was the trigger that caused the prices to fall - it was the packers being able to contract more cattle than needed. As long as the packers can stay ahead of the ball, it is rolling downhill.

You need to ponder what allowed the packers to lower bids in the first place and the relationship today's cash price has on tomorrow's contract.
Another question is why would any packer contract twice as many cattle as what they needed?

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Mike Callicrate perjured himself and Taylor's "theories" were admittedly untested."

Another half-baked comment. :lol: Why don't you look up the definition of "theory". :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandblaster: "When Bass's buyers lower their bids per his instructions, the cash prices fall."

Wrong AGAIN!

When Bruce Bass's buyers lower their bids per his instructions, the cash price THEY PAY falls.

WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT IBP'S Bruce Bass is the only buyer?

What about Excel, Swift, Smithfield, USPB, and all the level two packer's buyers???

DID YOU FORGET THOSE GUYS????

Obviously to overlook such an obvious fact you must really be ignorant of these issues.

Why would you make such a fool out of yourself by entering into a discussion on a topic you know absolutely nothing about?


Sandblaster: "You then consider the cause/relationship of what was the trigger that caused the prices to fall - it was the packers being able to contract more cattle than needed."

THE TRIGGER IN THIS SITUATION WAS PRODUCERS WILLINGLY ENTERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS WITH IBP SO IBP NEEDED LESS CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY DID THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE KNOWING THIS?????

WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE FORWARD CONTRACTS BRING LESS MONEY THAN THE CASH CATTLE PRICES LATER??????

SHOULD THE FORWARD CONTRACTORS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE IBP FOR BUYING THEIR FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE FOR LESS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IN THE CASH MARKET LATER????

WHY NOT??? HELL IF YOU ARE GOING TO SUE FOR BUSINESS VENTURES YOU WILLINGLY ENTER INTO WHY STOP HERE????

You are not even qualified to have a discussion on cattle pricing.



Sandblaster: "Another question is why would any packer contract twice as many cattle as what they needed?"

And another question and another question and another question ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Why don't you explain it Sandlblaster?

I'm sick of answering your questions when you aren't asking to learn but rather asking to see if the latest sh*t you throw against the wall will actually stick.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandblaster: "When Bass's buyers lower their bids per his instructions, the cash prices fall."

SH, "Wrong AGAIN! When Bruce Bass's buyers lower their bids per his instructions, the cash price THEY PAY falls. WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT IBP'S Bruce Bass is the only buyer? What about Excel, Swift, Smithfield, USPB, and all the level two packer's buyers??? DID YOU FORGET THOSE GUYS???? Obviously to overlook such an obvious fact you must really be ignorant of these issues. "

You just can't accept the fact that each packer knows what the other is paying and acts accordingly. If you were Swift, Excel, whoever, and you knew IBP was lowering bids, wouldn't you do the same? Of course you would. One of my feeder customers tells me that is exactly what they do - he sees it first hand all the time. If you want to know what happens in real life, I suggest you talk to someone who deals with the packers in real life. Until then, you just think you know what is happening. :wink:

Sandblaster: "You then consider the cause/relationship of what was the trigger that caused the prices to fall - it was the packers being able to contract more cattle than needed."

SH, "THE TRIGGER IN THIS SITUATION WAS PRODUCERS WILLINGLY ENTERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS WITH IBP SO IBP NEEDED LESS CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DID THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE KNOWING THIS????? WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE FORWARD CONTRACTS BRING LESS MONEY THAN THE CASH CATTLE PRICES LATER?????? SHOULD THE FORWARD CONTRACTORS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE IBP FOR BUYING THEIR FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE FOR LESS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IN THE CASH MARKET LATER???? WHY NOT??? HELL IF YOU ARE GOING TO SUE FOR BUSINESS VENTURES YOU WILLINGLY ENTER INTO WHY STOP HERE????
You are not even qualified to have a discussion on cattle pricing. "

The problem is in the sheer volume IBP does and how their volume alone bends the market. If Kadoka packers enters a contract with you with a price to be determined, you are both at equal risk. Neither one of you can influence what that final price will be because you're both just drops in the bucket. Not so with IBP. They have the advantage because of their size, they CAN influence what that final price will be. That is the root of the problem. THERE IS NOT EQUAL RISK. We both know feeding is a low margin business fraught with risk. Many of those feeders at any given time can't take any more chances on prices and have to enter a contract. Too many feeders simply don't have the pockets to do anything else.

Sandblaster: "Another question is why would any packer contract twice as many cattle as what they needed?"

SH, "And another question and another question and another question ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Why don't you explain it Sandlblaster? I'm sick of answering your questions when you aren't asking to learn but rather asking to see if the latest sh*t you throw against the wall will actually stick."

You don't like answering my questions because they make you very uncomfortable - instead you whine and divert. You know that packers over contracting is key to making this deal work. They can't lower bids if they need the cattle. Why did Bass contract 190% of his needs? So he could lower bids and pinch the feeders. Simple as that. :shock:

You got any more insults you can throw my way?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandblaster: "You just can't accept the fact that each packer knows what the other is paying and acts accordingly."

If the markets were controlled THE CATTLE PRICE WOULD NOT MOVE.

Do you think packers have periods of generosity to allow the market to move if it's supposedly controlled????

The other packers are in competition for the same cattle. If they don't bid up THEY DON'T GET THEM BOUGHT!!!

This is so elementary!


Sandblaster: "If you were Swift, Excel, whoever, and you knew IBP was lowering bids, wouldn't you do the same?"

If everyone of these packers did the same, WHY WOULD CATTLE PRICES EVER MOVE SANDBLASTER????? Explain that!

The fact that cattle prices move shoots your captive supply conspiracy theory all to hell.

If you want to own them you have to get them bought over the competition.


If ibp could legitimately control the market, WHERE IS THE PROOF????

Why did they only make $26 per head profits during the pickett era????

The reason is because the captive supply conspiracy theory is nothing but packer blamer's bullsh*t!


Sandblaster: "If you want to know what happens in real life, I suggest you talk to someone who deals with the packers in real life."

I have dealt with packers directly for many years. One more of your dogs that wouldn't hunt.

The reason the bids are so close between the major packers is because these companies are getting relatively the same price for their boxed beef and they are fairly equal in efficiencies. As plants become more efficient, they lower cattle prices not raise them.

Another obvious fact is that if there was so much money to be made in the packing industry, SOMEONE WOULD BE MAKING IT. There is an opportunity there. Packing plants would be expanding instead of selling out.


Explain to the readers why the prices paid for cattle changes if the market was controlled???

EXPLAIN THAT!

The obvious is simply too obvious for the conspiring mind isn't it?


Sandblaster: "Why did Bass contract 190% of his needs? So he could lower bids and pinch the feeders."

THEN WHY DID THESE PRODUCERS, INCLUDING THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS, FORWARD CONTRACT THEIR CATTLE TO THEM????

HMMMMM???????

DO YOU WANT TO END FORWARD CONTRACTS??????

IF NOT, YOU ARE A PROPONENT OF CAPTIVE SUPPLY!!!!


Sandblaster: "Not so with IBP. They have the advantage because of their size, they CAN influence what that final price will be. That is the root of the problem. THERE IS NOT EQUAL RISK."

Their advantage because of their size is EFFICIENCY which allows them to pay more than their competition not less. If they try to lower their prices, THEIR COMPETITION GETS THE CATTLE.

Swift & Co. and Excel combined own a larger share of the market than Tyson does.


Sandblaster: "We both know feeding is a low margin business fraught with risk. Many of those feeders at any given time can't take any more chances on prices and have to enter a contract. Too many feeders simply don't have the pockets to do anything else."

And the packing industry isn't???

The packer doesn't determine what the consumer will do.

Any one of these feeders could lock their price at the CME. They wouldn't need to forward contract to protect their price. All Tyson does is turn around and lock their price in at the same time but you know what the difference is??? TYSON STANDS THE BASIS RISK ON A FORWARD CONTRACT!!!

You didn't know that either did you?


Sandblaster: "You don't like answering my questions because they make you very uncomfortable - instead you whine and divert."

Uncomfortable????

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's truly funny!

Why would I be uncomfortable debating someone who can't even back their position with supporting facts?

I don't like answering your questions because you don' t want to know the truth. You are only looking for the chink in the armour of facts to support your blaming agenda. Truth and facts mean nothing to a blaming R-CULTer.

You cannot disprove a single thing I have written here. You'll just send out another volley of diverting questions and statements. Same-O factually defenseless you.



~SH~

 

[Andy]

SH "As plants become more efficient, they lower cattle prices not raise them."

I think you ment As they become more efficient they raise the price, not lower them.

And sandhusker, What drives the market up?

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandblaster: "You just can't accept the fact that each packer knows what the other is paying and acts accordingly."

If the markets were controlled THE CATTLE PRICE WOULD NOT MOVE.

Do you think packers have periods of generosity to allow the market to move if it's supposedly controlled????

The other packers are in competition for the same cattle. If they don't bid up THEY DON'T GET THEM BOUGHT!!!

This is so elementary!


Sandblaster: "If you were Swift, Excel, whoever, and you knew IBP was lowering bids, wouldn't you do the same?"

If everyone of these packers did the same, WHY WOULD CATTLE PRICES EVER MOVE SANDBLASTER????? Explain that!

The fact that cattle prices move shoots your captive supply conspiracy theory all to hell.

If you want to own them you have to get them bought over the competition.


If ibp could legitimately control the market, WHERE IS THE PROOF????

Why did they only make $26 per head profits during the pickett era????

The reason is because the captive supply conspiracy theory is nothing but packer blamer's bullsh*t!


Sandblaster: "If you want to know what happens in real life, I suggest you talk to someone who deals with the packers in real life."

I have dealt with packers directly for many years. One more of your dogs that wouldn't hunt.

The reason the bids are so close between the major packers is because these companies are getting relatively the same price for their boxed beef and they are fairly equal in efficiencies. As plants become more efficient, they lower cattle prices not raise them.

Another obvious fact is that if there was so much money to be made in the packing industry, SOMEONE WOULD BE MAKING IT. There is an opportunity there. Packing plants would be expanding instead of selling out.


Explain to the readers why the prices paid for cattle changes if the market was controlled???

EXPLAIN THAT!

The obvious is simply too obvious for the conspiring mind isn't it?


Sandblaster: "Why did Bass contract 190% of his needs? So he could lower bids and pinch the feeders."

THEN WHY DID THESE PRODUCERS, INCLUDING THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS, FORWARD CONTRACT THEIR CATTLE TO THEM????

HMMMMM???????

DO YOU WANT TO END FORWARD CONTRACTS??????

IF NOT, YOU ARE A PROPONENT OF CAPTIVE SUPPLY!!!!


Sandblaster: "Not so with IBP. They have the advantage because of their size, they CAN influence what that final price will be. That is the root of the problem. THERE IS NOT EQUAL RISK."

Their advantage because of their size is EFFICIENCY which allows them to pay more than their competition not less. If they try to lower their prices, THEIR COMPETITION GETS THE CATTLE.

Swift & Co. and Excel combined own a larger share of the market than Tyson does.


Sandblaster: "We both know feeding is a low margin business fraught with risk. Many of those feeders at any given time can't take any more chances on prices and have to enter a contract. Too many feeders simply don't have the pockets to do anything else."

And the packing industry isn't???

The packer doesn't determine what the consumer will do.

Any one of these feeders could lock their price at the CME. They wouldn't need to forward contract to protect their price. All Tyson does is turn around and lock their price in at the same time but you know what the difference is??? TYSON STANDS THE BASIS RISK ON A FORWARD CONTRACT!!!

You didn't know that either did you?


Sandblaster: "You don't like answering my questions because they make you very uncomfortable - instead you whine and divert."

Uncomfortable????

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's truly funny!

Why would I be uncomfortable debating someone who can't even back their position with supporting facts?

I don't like answering your questions because you don' t want to know the truth. You are only looking for the chink in the armour of facts to support your blaming agenda. Truth and facts mean nothing to a blaming R-CULTer.

You cannot disprove a single thing I have written here. You'll just send out another volley of diverting questions and statements. Same-O factually defenseless you.



~SH~

First of all, a little confusion with your statements; :???:
"As plants become more efficient, they lower cattle prices not raise them."
"Their advantage because of their size is EFFICIENCY which allows them to pay more than their competition not less." :shock:
You're slipping, SH. I can find your contradictions in the same post now. :lol:

SH, "If everyone of these packers did the same, WHY WOULD CATTLE PRICES EVER MOVE SANDBLASTER????? Explain that!

That is very easy. ALL OTHER THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL.

Sandblaster: "Why did Bass contract 190% of his needs? So he could lower bids and pinch the feeders."

SH,'s deversion from the question, "THEN WHY DID THESE PRODUCERS, INCLUDING THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS, FORWARD CONTRACT THEIR CATTLE TO THEM???? "

You're two-for-two dodging that question now :wink: Want to try again? I'm telling you Bass overcontracted so he could pinch the feeders down the road. Let's hear your explanation :shock:

SH,"Any one of these feeders could lock their price at the CME. They wouldn't need to forward contract to protect their price. All Tyson does is turn around and lock their price in at the same time but you know what the difference is??? TYSON STANDS THE BASIS RISK ON A FORWARD CONTRACT!!! You didn't know that either did you? "

I know that. I've been trading contracts since you were in short pants. Did you ever stop to think that that price the feeders can lock in at the Merc might not be a profit?

You think the packers don't have deeper pockets than the feeders? Do you really want to get into that?

SH, "That's truly funny! Why would I be uncomfortable debating someone who can't even back their position with supporting facts? "

That's a laugher considering you also wrote this, "No, I'm not going to provide the proof"

You're a dandy, SH :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Yes Andy, you are correct. I meant as packers become more efficient, they pay more for cattle, not less. I have stated that many times I was just in a hurry this morning and forgot to proof read.

Thank you Andy, I stand corrected.


This whole captive supply conspiracy theory is so damn stupid and so elementary I can't believe I waste my time trying to explain it to fools.

If a cattle producer needs 100 replacement heifers and they only have small lots to pick from, they will start out paying more and as their needs are met, the price they pay will fall accordingly if the market remains the same.

WHY ISN'T THAT CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION????

If a cattle producer needs 50 bulls they will start out bidding more aggressively and as their needs are met, the price they pay will fall.

WHY ISN'T THAT CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION?????

If a feeder needs 5000 calves, they will start out bidding more agressively and as their needs are met, they will drop the price they pay accordingly.

WHY ISN'T THAT CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION?????

SOMEHOW THE COMMON BUSINESS PRACTIVE OF DROPPING YOUR PRICE AS YOUR NEEDS HAVE BEEN MET BECOMES MARKET MANIPULATION AT THE PACKER LEVEL?

WHERE'S THE LOGIC?????

How producers can be such damn hypocrites for blaming packers for the exact same business practices they conduct everyday is beyond me. To top it off, they willingly enter into forward contracts with packers than file lawsuits against the packers for dropping their prices as their needs were met through these forward contracts that they willingly entered into.

I'm sure packer blamers can figure out someway to justify it!

I don't care what feeder cattle auction you go to, as the buyers meet their needs, the prices drop. WHY ISN'T ANYONE SCREAMING ABOUT MARKET MANIPULATION??? WHY ISN'T ANYONE FILING A LAWSUIT???? IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING!

Packer victims..........sheeeeesh!


SH (previous): "WHY DID THESE PRODUCERS, INCLUDING THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS, FORWARD CONTRACT THEIR CATTLE TO THEM????"

Why did you avoid that question Sandblaster?

Answer the question and quit diverting around it. Too uncomfortable for you?


Sandblaster: "I'm telling you Bass overcontracted so he could pinch the feeders down the road. Let's hear your explanation"

First of all, Bruce Bass did not overcontract. He didn' t buy more cattle than he could slaughter. The question is not even legitimate because it's based on a flawed assumption. Typical of most of your questions.

Second, you make another absolutely ridiculous assumption that Bruce Bass can contract cattle whenever he wants. TO DO THAT REQUIRES WILLING SELLERS AT THE RIGHT PRICE. If he doesn't have willing sellers and the right price, he can't contract any cattle can he????

Third, how can he pinch feeders down the road WHEN HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT THE MARKETS WILL DO BETWEEN NOW AND THEN????

Fourth, this is nothing that a feeder could not do himself on the CME board.


Go ahead, argue these points with me. You are obviously in way over your head.


Sandblaster: "Did you ever stop to think that that price the feeders can lock in at the Merc might not be a profit?"

LMAO!

THEN WHY WOULD THEY LOCK IT IN?????


Sandblaster: " You think the packers don't have deeper pockets than the feeders?"

IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A POINT, MAKE IT!!!!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "If a cattle producer needs 100 replacement heifers and they only have small lots to pick from, they will start out paying more and as their needs are met, the price they pay will fall accordingly if the market remains the same. WHY ISN'T THAT CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION???? If a cattle producer needs 50 bulls they will start out bidding more aggressively and as their needs are met, the price they pay will fall. WHY ISN'T THAT CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION?????
If a feeder needs 5000 calves, they will start out bidding more agressively and as their needs are met, they will drop the price they pay accordingly.
WHY ISN'T THAT CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION????? '

Your examples are rediculous, SH. You're talking about someone buying a few head when Tyson buys 1/3 of ALL the fats themselves! Tyson is the fat kid on the teeter-totter. You don't have any pull buying a few thousand head, you do buying a few million.

SH, "I meant as packers become more efficient, they pay more for cattle, not less."

I don't think it is that simple. Packers will always pay as little as they can for cattle, regardless. That is business 101. Greater efficiencies translate into higher profits. I'll bet you that you can't find a direct correalation between packer efficiencies and cattle prices. I'd like to see you prove that statement. I don't think you can.

SH (previous): "WHY DID THESE PRODUCERS, INCLUDING THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS, FORWARD CONTRACT THEIR CATTLE TO THEM????"

I don't know, you'll have to ask them. You may very well get a different answer from each guy.

SH,"First of all, Bruce Bass did not overcontract. He didn' t buy more cattle than he could slaughter. The question is not even legitimate because it's based on a flawed assumption. Typical of most of your questions.

Horsepucky, SH. Contracting 190% of your needs is not overcontrating?
What the hell does 190% mean to you? Quit squirming with this "flawed assumption" garbage. You have no logical explanation of why he would do this so you squirm and try to discredit me. Why do you think he would do this, SH? I told you why I think he did it.

SH, "Second, you make another absolutely ridiculous assumption that Bruce Bass can contract cattle whenever he wants. TO DO THAT REQUIRES WILLING SELLERS AT THE RIGHT PRICE. If he doesn't have willing sellers and the right price, he can't contract any cattle can he????"

This whole deal isn't about the price today, SH. It's about pressing it down tomorrow.

SH, "Third, how can he pinch feeders down the road WHEN HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT THE MARKETS WILL DO BETWEEN NOW AND THEN???? "

He can't know for sure what the markets will do because there are other variables. However, he knows that supply and demand set the price and he will be removing a sizable chunk of the demand. He's starting the game knowing what everybody's first card is.

SH, "Fourth, this is nothing that a feeder could not do himself on the CME board. "

You are truly grasping for straws. For someone to say that, they would have to know very little about how the CME works. If any feeder could do it, it would of been done and the loophole closed so it would't happen again.

SH, "Sandblaster: "Did you ever stop to think that that price the feeders can lock in at the Merc might not be a profit?" LMAO! THEN WHY WOULD THEY LOCK IT IN????? "

Just trying to show you that the Merc is not always the answer.

SH, "Go ahead, argue these points with me. You are obviously in way over your head."

I'll let the board decide that.

 

[Andy]

Sanhusker "Greater efficiencies translate into higher profits. I'll bet you that you can't find a direct correalation between packer efficiencies and cattle prices. I'd like to see you prove that statement. I don't think you can."

Can you show me a correalation between packer efficiencies and packer profit? I bet you can't.

Also if Tyson is bidding 90 cents on monday and they buy most of the cattle for that week and then drop the price to 85 for the rest of the week is that market manipulation?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandblaster: "talking about someone buying a few head when Tyson buys 1/3 of ALL the fats themselves!"

I don't care how you try to justify it in your conspiring mind, the business concept of lowering your price as your needs are being met is exactly the same whether it's producers, feeders, packers, or retailers.

THAT'S BUSINESS 101 NO MATTER THE SIZE.

When it's producers or feeders bidding less as their needs are met, it's "business".

When it's the large packers or large retailers that bid less as their needs are met, it's "market manipulation".

The conspiring minds of packer blamers like yourself can justify the difference based on "SIZE" as you just have.

You'd convince yourself of packer "market manipulation" no matter what the packer profit margins were at that time.

Whenever cattle prices fall, here come's the packer blaming, market manipulation conspiracy theorists armed with nothing but their baseless conspiracy theories. It's a time honored tradition within this industry.


Your hypocritical packer blaming position is crystal clear.

That's the same pathetic packer victim mentality that plagues the U.S. cattle industry. Long on rhetoric and short on facts.


Sandblaster: "Packers will always pay as little as they can for cattle, regardless. That is business 101.'

Oh, I see, before this practice was "market manipulation" now it's "business 101". Hahaha!

A direct contradiction AGAIN!

You're a dandy!

You sound more like McDonnell and Bullard every day.


Of course they will pay as little as they can as will Excel, Swift, Smithfield, and USPB but someone is going to have to pay more than the next guy to get those cattle bought.

Where's my proof of that? THE FACT THAT CATTLE PRICES MOVE UP AND DOWN. If cattle prices were controlled, the markets wouldn't have any reason to move.

The obvious is simply to obvious for the conspiring mind.


Sandblaster: "Greater efficiencies translate into higher profits."

Greater efficiences may translate into higher OVERALL PROFITS but not higher PER HEAD PROFITS which is what affects producers directly.


Sandblaster: "I'll bet you that you can't find a direct correalation between packer efficiencies and cattle prices."

Are you suggesting that there is not a correlation between packer efficiencies and higher cattle prices?

YES OR NO?

Don't make me ask again!


Through the 90's, per head packer profits of $3.88 were reported for the 5 largest packers via GIPSA's information.

How can you be more efficient than killing cattle for $3.88 per head?

You don't think those efficiencies led to higher cattle prices?


Hell the local locker plants are paying someone to haul their ofal away while these larger plants are profiting from ofal too WHICH THEY PASS ON TO THE PRODUCER IN THE FORM OF HIGHER CATTLE PRICES. If they didn't their per head profits would be higher than $3.88 per head.


The problem is there is no measurable way to seperate the exact impact of packer efficiencies on cattle prices per say from the impact of increased demand and decreased supplies on cattle prices.


Now observe as Sandblaster disregards the following informaiton and sinks his conspiring teeth into that single statement like the desperate R-CULTer he really is.


Here's what we do know......

We know the packing industry has never been more concentrated and we just saw the highest cattle prices on record.

We know packer return on investment figures via GIPSA.

We know per head packer profit figures for ibp from Pickett.

We know smaller less efficient packing companies could not compete and sold out to the larger more efficient packers.

We know that markets move in correlation with boxed beef prices.


In contrast, where is the proof that market manipulation exists to support your theory Sandblaster? There is none! As always, instead of bringing something to support your position, all you can offer is to call into question the facts I present which speaks to the level of confidence you have in your position.


Sandblaster: "I don't know, you'll have to ask them. You may very well get a different answer from each guy."

The fact remains, the Pickett plaintiffs willingly entered into captive supply arrangements with ibp then sued them for those arrangements being the hypocrites they are.

You can justify this action too can't you?


Sandblaster: " Horsepucky, SH. Contracting 190% of your needs is not overcontrating?"

DEFINE "Contracting 190% of your needs" Sandblaster?

DEFINE IT!!!!

You don't even know what you are talking about AGAIN do you?

How do you contract 90% more cattle than you can slaughter?

EXPLAIN THAT!!!

That doesn't even make sense.

You just repeated what you heard again without even understanding what it meant.


Sandblaster: "What the hell does 190% mean to you?"

I told you I'm done playing your games.

I'm not going to define this statement for you because it's not my statement and it doesn't make sense.

YOU DEFINE THAT STATEMENT, YOU ARE THE ONE BLINDLY SUPPORTING IT.

WHAT DOES 190% MEAN TO YOU SANDBLASTER???? EXPLAIN IT!!!!!!!!!

You define it or I'll just figure you don't know what the hell it means proving what a R-CULT lemming you really are.

Bruce Bass would not contract more cattle than he could slaughter. How stupid would that be???? EXPLAIN IT!!!!!!!!

Watch this readers..............


Sandblaster: "He can't know for sure what the markets will do because there are other variables. However, he knows that supply and demand set the price and he will be removing a sizable chunk of the demand."

Oh, so "supply and demand" set the price yet packers can manipulate markets and you question whether there is a correlation between boxed beef prices and live cattle prices? Hahaha!

You can't stay on track because you are lost.


Sandblaster: "You are truly grasping for straws. For someone to say that, they would have to know very little about how the CME works. If any feeder could do it, it would of been done and the loophole closed so it would't happen again."

This just shows how ignorant you really are about forward contracts.

When a producer forward contracts cattle to a packer, that packer turns around and protects that contract with a long position on the board JUST LIKE THE FEEDER COULD DO.

Know why the feeder uses the forward contract instead???

Because the packer stands the basis risk, THAT'S WHY!!!!


Remember when the packer blamers were up in arms about packers supposedly manipulating markets at the CME???

REMEMBER THAT BASELESS CONSPIRACY THEORY?????

Well guess what happened??? The government stepped in to save the little packer blamers again and conducted a federal investigation into packer contracts at the merc. GUESS WHAT THEY FOUND????

They found out that the packers had far more long positions than the feeders did.

YET ANOTHER BASELESS PACKER BLAMING CONSPIRACY THEORY SHOT TO HELL BY THE FACTS.

The packer blamers didn't miss a beat and just went on to another baseless conspiracy theory.


Sandblaster (previous): "Did you ever stop to think that that price the feeders can lock in at the Merc might not be a profit?"

SH (in response): "THEN WHY WOULD THEY LOCK IT IN????? "

Sandblaster: "Just trying to show you that the Merc is not always the answer."

Oh, that's why they locked it in when it might not be a profit?????

That didn't even make sense.

If it wasn't a profit when they locked it in, they shouldn't have locked it in. If they didn't know it wasn't a profit when they locked it in, they either didn't know their expenses or they didn't know their cattle's performance for the weather conditions. Who's fault is that?


~SH~

 

[Mike]

SH:"Greater efficiences may translate into higher OVERALL PROFITS but not higher PER HEAD PROFITS which is what affects producers directly."

I would like you to explain how "OVERALL PROFITS" do not correlate to "PER HEAD PROFITS". They seem to be one and the same to me.

If the packer took his NET profit, and divided the number of head slaughtered into it, that would give him a "PER HEAD PROFIT". Right?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandblaster (previous): "Greater efficiencies translate into higher profits."

SH (in response): " Greater efficiences may translate into higher OVERALL PROFITS but not higher PER HEAD PROFITS which is what affects producers directly."

Mike: "I would like you to explain how "OVERALL PROFITS" do not correlate to "PER HEAD PROFITS". They seem to be one and the same to me."

You are correct Mike, they are one in the same. I didn't word that correctly.

What I meant to say is that overall packer profits present a misleading picture without translating it into a per head basis.

Unless you know how many cattle packer A slaughtered, packer A may appear more efficient, from a total profitability standpoint, than packer B but comparing per head profits between packers shows a different picture.

That is what I meant to say. Sorry for the confusion.


Mike: "If the packer took his NET profit, and divided the number of head slaughtered into it, that would give him a "PER HEAD PROFIT". Right?"

Yes!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Since I'm already in the pig wrestling match....

SH "DEFINE "Contracting 190% of your needs" Sandblaster? DEFINE IT!!!!
You don't even know what you are talking about AGAIN do you? How do you contract 90% more cattle than you can slaughter?

Is elementary math beyond your grasp? Your desire to defend Bass is making you look pretty silly - now you don't know what 190% means? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

SH, "WHAT DOES 190% MEAN TO YOU SANDBLASTER???? EXPLAIN IT!!!!!!!!! You define it or I'll just figure you don't know what the hell it means proving what a R-CULT lemming you really are. "


OK, little Scotty. Mrs. McGregor needs 10 apples to bake a pie for Mr. McGregor. She buys 19 apples. She now has 190% of the apples that she needs.

SH, "Bruce Bass would not contract more cattle than he could slaughter. How stupid would that be???? EXPLAIN IT!!!!!!!! Watch this readers......."

Are you still claiming that you don't understand what "contracting 190% of his needs" means? :???: :lol: :lol: The article says he did exactly that. Why don't you go back and read it? He did it for a reason, not because he was stupid. The stupid part of this equasion in not being able to figure out why he would do such a thing. Why don't you give me your ideas on why he did it? You've dodged this 3 times now. A little uncomfortable? :wink:

Sandblaster: "He can't know for sure what the markets will do because there are other variables. However, he knows that supply and demand set the price and he will be removing a sizable chunk of the demand."

SH, "Oh, so "supply and demand" set the price yet packers can manipulate markets and you question whether there is a correlation between boxed beef prices and live cattle prices? Hahaha! "

You're just jumping from branch to branch. :lol: What happens to the price of any commodity when demand goes down? What happens to demand when the outfit responsible for 1/3 of all the purchases doesn't buy? Why wouldn't IBP buy? Maybe because they overcontracted the week prior and didn't need only a fraction of what they usually take? OH, MY! Mr. Bass suddenly isn't so stupid, is he? :wink:

SH, "You can't stay on track because you are lost."

And that statement is supposed to be taken credibly when it comes from someone who needs a definition of what 190% means? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why did you refuse to prove the relationship between boxed beef and fats prices? Did you find something that could be used against you? Maybe you don't really know but it sounded like a smart thing to say? :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandblaster: "OK, little Scotty. Mrs. McGregor needs 10 apples to bake a pie for Mr. McGregor. She buys 19 apples. She now has 190% of the apples that she needs."

If this simpleton definition of 190% applies to ibp then you are sayin that ibp bought 90% more cattle than they could slaughter?

ibp is not going to purchase 90% more cattle than they can slaughter.

The 190% statement from the article is flat wrong the way you are interpreting it.

You just parroted a phrase without even thinking about it being the little follower you are.

There is no reason to address WHY Bruce would do this when it never happened the way you are interpreting it.

THE ARTICLE IS WRONG TO SUGGEST THAT IBP WOULD BUY MORE CATTLE THAN THEY COULD SLAUGHTER.


Sandblaster: "What happens to the price of any commodity when demand goes down?"

The price falls if the supply remains constant.


Sandhusker: "What happens to demand when the outfit responsible for 1/3 of all the purchases doesn't buy?"

In most cases nothing because they are not the only buyer.


Sandhusker: "Why wouldn't IBP buy? Maybe because they overcontracted the week prior and didn't need only a fraction of what they usually take?"

They didn't buy because they already bought.

They didn't overcontract the week prior because they didn't buy more cattle than they could slaughter.


Sandhusker: "Why did you refuse to prove the relationship between boxed beef and fats prices? Did you find something that could be used against you? Maybe you don't really know but it sounded like a smart thing to say?"

I refuse to play your little games of proving every statement I make when you offer nothing to back your position. There is nothing more elementary in the cattle/beef industry than the relation between boxed beef prices and live cattle prices.

If I need to prove that you can just continue to assume that I'm wrong. I really don't care if you are really that ignorant.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH,"ibp is not going to purchase 90% more cattle than they can slaughter.
The 190% statement from the article is flat wrong the way you are interpreting it. You just parroted a phrase without even thinking about it being the little follower you are. There is no reason to address WHY Bruce would do this when it never happened the way you are interpreting it. THE ARTICLE IS WRONG TO SUGGEST THAT IBP WOULD BUY MORE CATTLE THAN THEY COULD SLAUGHTER.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Is that right? :roll: How else are you going to intreprit it. This will the fourth time I've asked this :? Here is the paragraph again for your perusing convenience;

"Bass also testified that during some weeks IBP owned as much as 190% of its kill needs, nearly double what they'd need for their slaughter plants the following week. When that happened Bass told his buyers to lower their bids for cash cattle."

What's the explanation? I'm all ears.

SH, "They didn't overcontract the week prior because they didn't buy more cattle than they could slaughter. "

Er, you want to read the paragraph again and tell me what "190% of it's kill needs" means?

"Sandhusker: "What happens to demand when the outfit responsible for 1/3 of all the purchases doesn't buy?"

SH's reply,"In most cases nothing because they are not the only buyer."

:lol: :lol: :lol: So reducing 1/3 of the demand with a constant supply will have no effect on prices? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.